Countries that still have functioning monarchies?

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:11 pm

In the thread about Bill Gates and whether he is the richest man in the world or not, the Sultan of Brunei Darussalam was brought up - and he is by all counts a functioning monarch, the ruler of his country as well as the religion, and his father before him.

I believe Jordan also has a functioning monarch. Are there any other countries?

Remember functioning is important - figureheads don't count.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:46 pm

The UK

They function as a tourist attraction, and as page fillers when the newspapers have no stories.

Master Higgins · Post by **Master Higgins** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:50 pm

Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Japan (Religious Head), Vatican City, I think Monaco...some others

Wagh · Post by **Wagh** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:52 pm

Lichtenstein with the prince I'd guess.

Kamjin · Post by **Kamjin** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:16 pm

Canada.. and I think most other Commonwealth countries..
and it's kinda scary in a sense since constitutionally she
still is the supreme power, even over the democracy..

If she actually felt like it.. she could litterally pass
or stop any law.. Do anything she actually wanted...

-Azathoth- · Post by **-Azathoth-** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:17 pm

It's good to be the king! (old mel brooks reference <<)

Master Higgins · Post by **Master Higgins** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:35 pm

Canada.. and I think most other Commonwealth countries..
and it's kinda scary in a sense since constitutionally she
still is the supreme power, even over the democracy..

If she actually felt like it.. she could litterally pass
or stop any law.. Do anything she actually wanted...

ya right. Australia has all but sloughed commonwealth status and Canada is more a satellite of the USA than it is the UK, she is pretty much powerless.

Skynet · Post by **Skynet** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:43 am

I can't wait till Aussies give the queen the boot. Happy days to come

I just hope that means that the current Aussie PM (john howard) would be allowed to run for president of Au. That'd be nightmare!

Hawq · Post by **Hawq** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:08 pm

Skynet wrote:I can't wait till Aussies give the queen the boot. Happy days to come

Uh didnt you lot say you wanted that a few years back then when it came to making a desicion you all decided to keep the queen? oh yes, you did.

Post by **Dr. Zoidberg** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:13 pm

Hawq wrote:
Skynet wrote:I can't wait till Aussies give the queen the boot. Happy days to come
Uh didnt you lot say you wanted that a few years back then when it came to making a desicion you all decided to keep the queen? oh yes, you did.

That's because it would have been replaced with a system where the politicians would have elected who became President, which most people were/are against. The majority of Australians want to get rid of the monarchy, it's mainly old geezers who want to keep it but hopefully most of them will be gone by the next referendum.

Master Higgins · Post by **Master Higgins** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 3:00 pm

Dr. Zoidberg wrote:
Hawq wrote:
Skynet wrote:I can't wait till Aussies give the queen the boot. Happy days to come
Uh didnt you lot say you wanted that a few years back then when it came to making a desicion you all decided to keep the queen? oh yes, you did.
That's because it would have been replaced with a system where the politicians would have elected who became President, which most people were/are against. The majority of Australians want to get rid of the monarchy, it's mainly old geezers who want to keep it but hopefully most of them will be gone by the next referendum.

Screw referendums, just kill the royalty

Show the French and Russians that y'all got balls too

Cn'Fused · Post by **Cn'Fused** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:12 am

Dr. Zoidberg wrote:That's because it would have been replaced with a system where the politicians would have elected who became President, which most people were/are against. The majority of Australians want to get rid of the monarchy, it's mainly old geezers who want to keep it but hopefully most of them will be gone by the next referendum.

I think most people who voted against the referendum thought that there would either be a loss of ties with Britain, a loss of money from the changes or just didn't want to change.

I remember a friend of mine tried incredibly hard to explain that because we were to become a Republic we'd have to change our flag, our currency, everything with the Union Jack on it because Britain would make us do it.
My first thought was "Don't we change our currency every few years anyway? Why don't we just change the currency next time the mint makes a new design?". Then I figured that yes, it would cost a bit to alter the flag and that, but not enough to bankrupt the country for sure. And we certainly would have had some time to do it - as if England would declare war on us for a flag issue

Anyway, I think my point is that lots of people got sucked into the No! side by bullshit ideas of problems involved with the system. I would have voted Yes!, but many people I know voted against it because they weren't sure it was for the best.
Next time, let's hope the idea isn't so messy...

Post by **Specially Cork** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:12 am

Dr. Zoidberg wrote:
Hawq wrote:
Skynet wrote:I can't wait till Aussies give the queen the boot. Happy days to come
Uh didnt you lot say you wanted that a few years back then when it came to making a desicion you all decided to keep the queen? oh yes, you did.
That's because it would have been replaced with a system where the politicians would have elected who became President, which most people were/are against. The majority of Australians want to get rid of the monarchy, it's mainly old geezers who want to keep it but hopefully most of them will be gone by the next referendum.

You make it sound like:
1) A referendum will be a common thing
2) Australia calls the shots over whether you have the queen or not

Your ours biznatch, you had your chance you break free and you threw it away. Maybe in 100 years or so we'll see how everything is working out.

Post by **Dr. Zoidberg** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 2:52 am

Cn'Fused wrote:I think most people who voted against the referendum thought that there would either be a loss of ties with Britain, a loss of money from the changes or just didn't want to change.

I remember a friend of mine tried incredibly hard to explain that because we were to become a Republic we'd have to change our flag, our currency, everything with the Union Jack on it because Britain would make us do it.
My first thought was "Don't we change our currency every few years anyway? Why don't we just change the currency next time the mint makes a new design?". Then I figured that yes, it would cost a bit to alter the flag and that, but not enough to bankrupt the country for sure. And we certainly would have had some time to do it - as if England would declare war on us for a flag issue

Anyway, I think my point is that lots of people got sucked into the No! side by poop ideas of problems involved with the system. I would have voted Yes!, but many people I know voted against it because they weren't sure it was for the best.

Yeah, all those were reasons too.

Cn'Fused wrote:Next time, let's hope the idea isn't so messy...

Hopefully it won't be.

scykon wrote: You make it sound like:
1) A referendum will be a common thing

There could be a new referendum on the republic before the decade is out.

scykon wrote:2) Australia calls the shots over whether you have the queen or not

We do, queeny said she wouldn't stop us becoming a republic if that's what we want.

scykon wrote:Your ours biznatch, you had your chance you break free and you threw it away. Maybe in 100 years or so we'll see how everything is working out.

NOOOOO!!! We don't won't to be associated with you whinging, unwashed, crooked teeth, suck at sport (except for rugger bugger) poms!

Skynet · Post by **Skynet** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:37 am

NOOOOO!!! We don't won't to be associated with you whinging, unwashed, crooked teeth, suck at sport (except for rugger bugger) poms!

so true!

We don't really have that much in common with them anymore. Look how multicultral this country is. We have our own identity now. That's why the queen she be done away with for us.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 4:57 am

It doesnt matter what Queeny says, she has no say over anything, except maybe what clothes shes going to wear.
Besides, I doubt you will get another referendum before Prince Charles takes over.*

*However this shouldnt really matter because if Prince Charles does take the throne it is very likley that the British monarchy will fall apart anyway. Most people are suggesting that for the monarchy to survive, Prince Charles needs to give up his right to the throne and let William take over, so we can have a King in his twenties who can make Royalty "cool" again.

Skynet · Post by **Skynet** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:04 am

I can't see the queen passing down the title any time soon anyway. That biatch is there to stay!

By the time Charles takes over, he'll prolly croak anyway.

pkScary · Post by **pkScary** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:55 pm

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Sat Apr 10, 2004 5:25 pm

Holland has a monarchy, or at least it did last time I was there.

readme.txt · Post by **readme.txt** » Sat Apr 10, 2004 6:00 pm

it still has a monarchy